| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
06 May 2007 06:21:49 AM |
| Object: |
Sep C&S History lessons #9 |
Sep C&S History lessons #9
Message #9358 of 9360
JANUARY 27, 1891
"Christianity being of a kingdom not of this world, cannot be united
with that of this world. This is too plain a proposition to be denied,
and when the church descends to asking civil power or aid in its
support there is something dangerously carnal in the purpose. . . .
"The observers of the first day of the week as the Sabbath can ask no
more for their religious convictions than can those who observe the
seventh day. If the Seventh day worshipers were to demand of
government a forced observance of their day, those of the first day
would look upon it as intolerant and presumption, and rightfully so,
too, and so is the demand of the observers of the first day toward
those of the seventh day, and a free government must so consider it. . . .
"The church has always been seeking power and never surrenders any
without being compelled. The effort at Sunday laws at this time is but
a steppingstone to that which would be still more oppressive. Look at
the case of a Mr. King, of Tennessee, a worshiper of the seventh day
school. He plowed a piece of land quietly on his own farm on Sunday,
and Pharisees of the first clay school prosecuted him and obtained a
conviction for that act and a fine of $75 imposed for it, and he was
cast into prison. No one was molested by his work, but the old spirit
of Puritanism indulged itself in that infamous proceeding. No man
identified with the law allowing such a conviction, be' he a priest or
layman, juryman or judge, or legislator, is worthy the enjoyment of
the privileges of a free civil government. It was hoped that
Puritanism was dead in this country. But its spirit seems still to be
among us seeking its gratification in the meanest manner possible. . . ,
"If the church had the power, every unbeliever would be outlawed; no
one could hold an office unless he was a church member, nor be allowed
to teach a common school."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Testimony of Judge Thomas Barlow, Rome, N. Y.,
Daily Sentinel, Jan. 27, 1891. American State Papers on Freedom in
Religion. 3rd Revised Edition. Published in 1943 for The Religious
Liberty Association, Washington, D.C. by the Review and Herald. First
Edition Compiled by William Addison Blakely, of the Chicago Bar.
(1890) under the Title American State Papers Bearing on Sunday
Legislation. pp 584-585)
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Sep C&S History lessons #9 |
06 May 2007 09:04:18 AM |
|
|
On May 6, 6:21 am, wrote:
Sep C&S History lessons #9
Message #9358 of 9360
JANUARY 27, 1891
"Christianity being of a kingdom not of this world, cannot be united
with that of this world. This is too plain a proposition to be denied,
and when the church descends to asking civil power or aid in its
support there is something dangerously carnal in the purpose. . . .
"The observers of the first day of the week as the Sabbath can ask no
more for their religious convictions than can those who observe the
seventh day. If the Seventh day worshipers were to demand of
government a forced observance of their day, those of the first day
would look upon it as intolerant and presumption, and rightfully so,
too, and so is the demand of the observers of the first day toward
those of the seventh day, and a free government must so consider it. . . .
"The church has always been seeking power and never surrenders any
without being compelled. The effort at Sunday laws at this time is but
a steppingstone to that which would be still more oppressive. Look at
the case of a Mr. King, of Tennessee, a worshiper of the seventh day
school. He plowed a piece of land quietly on his own farm on Sunday,
and Pharisees of the first clay school prosecuted him and obtained a
conviction for that act and a fine of $75 imposed for it, and he was
cast into prison. No one was molested by his work, but the old spirit
of Puritanism indulged itself in that infamous proceeding. No man
identified with the law allowing such a conviction, be' he a priest or
layman, juryman or judge, or legislator, is worthy the enjoyment of
the privileges of a free civil government. It was hoped that
Puritanism was dead in this country. But its spirit seems still to be
among us seeking its gratification in the meanest manner possible. . . ,
"If the church had the power, every unbeliever would be outlawed; no
one could hold an office unless he was a church member, nor be allowed
to teach a common school."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Testimony of Judge Thomas Barlow, Rome, N. Y.,
Daily Sentinel, Jan. 27, 1891. American State Papers on Freedom in
Religion. 3rd Revised Edition. Published in 1943 for The Religious
Liberty Association, Washington, D.C. by the Review and Herald. First
Edition Compiled by William Addison Blakely, of the Chicago Bar.
(1890) under the Title American State Papers Bearing on Sunday
Legislation. pp 584-585)
The "church" will do this? Really, all Christians? So, you are
admitting that you claim of "christian" supporters of the separation
is false. Or, if you are going from individual to organization, I
await your list of Christian organizations that have voted to
establish their denomination in the land.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
Romans 3:10-11: As it is written, There is none righteous, no not
one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh
after God.
Romans 3:23: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
****************************************************************
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Sep C&S History lessons #9 |
06 May 2007 09:55:12 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 6, 6:21 am, wrote:
Sep C&S History lessons #9
Message #9358 of 9360
JANUARY 27, 1891
"Christianity being of a kingdom not of this world, cannot be united
with that of this world. This is too plain a proposition to be denied,
and when the church descends to asking civil power or aid in its
support there is something dangerously carnal in the purpose. . . .
"The observers of the first day of the week as the Sabbath can ask no
more for their religious convictions than can those who observe the
seventh day. If the Seventh day worshipers were to demand of
government a forced observance of their day, those of the first day
would look upon it as intolerant and presumption, and rightfully so,
too, and so is the demand of the observers of the first day toward
those of the seventh day, and a free government must so consider it. . . .
"The church has always been seeking power and never surrenders any
without being compelled. The effort at Sunday laws at this time is but
a steppingstone to that which would be still more oppressive. Look at
the case of a Mr. King, of Tennessee, a worshiper of the seventh day
school. He plowed a piece of land quietly on his own farm on Sunday,
and Pharisees of the first clay school prosecuted him and obtained a
conviction for that act and a fine of $75 imposed for it, and he was
cast into prison. No one was molested by his work, but the old spirit
of Puritanism indulged itself in that infamous proceeding. No man
identified with the law allowing such a conviction, be' he a priest or
layman, juryman or judge, or legislator, is worthy the enjoyment of
the privileges of a free civil government. It was hoped that
Puritanism was dead in this country. But its spirit seems still to be
among us seeking its gratification in the meanest manner possible. . . ,
"If the church had the power, every unbeliever would be outlawed; no
one could hold an office unless he was a church member, nor be allowed
to teach a common school."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Testimony of Judge Thomas Barlow, Rome, N. Y.,
Daily Sentinel, Jan. 27, 1891. American State Papers on Freedom in
Religion. 3rd Revised Edition. Published in 1943 for The Religious
Liberty Association, Washington, D.C. by the Review and Herald. First
Edition Compiled by William Addison Blakely, of the Chicago Bar.
(1890) under the Title American State Papers Bearing on Sunday
Legislation. pp 584-585)
The "church" will do this? Really, all Christians? So, you are
admitting that you claim of "christian" supporters of the separation
is false. Or, if you are going from individual to organization, I
await your list of Christian organizations that have voted to
establish their denomination in the land.
Idiot. The poster is making no claim at all. He is providing
information from historical documents regarding the issue of
separation of church and state, as it has been debated throughout
American history. In 1891 the judge in question apparently said those
words in some official context (that is not clear from the cite).
The poster is not trying to debate the content of the post, and in
fact has said many times when posting such reference materials that he
will not debate them. He may not even agree with what the judge said.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Sep C&S History lessons #9 |
06 May 2007 10:36:06 AM |
|
|
On May 6, 9:55 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 6, 6:21 am, wrote:
Sep C&S History lessons #9
Message #9358 of 9360
JANUARY 27, 1891
"Christianity being of a kingdom not of this world, cannot be united
with that of this world. This is too plain a proposition to be denied,
and when the church descends to asking civil power or aid in its
support there is something dangerously carnal in the purpose. . . .
"The observers of the first day of the week as the Sabbath can ask no
more for their religious convictions than can those who observe the
seventh day. If the Seventh day worshipers were to demand of
government a forced observance of their day, those of the first day
would look upon it as intolerant and presumption, and rightfully so,
too, and so is the demand of the observers of the first day toward
those of the seventh day, and a free government must so consider it. . . .
"The church has always been seeking power and never surrenders any
without being compelled. The effort at Sunday laws at this time is but
a steppingstone to that which would be still more oppressive. Look at
the case of a Mr. King, of Tennessee, a worshiper of the seventh day
school. He plowed a piece of land quietly on his own farm on Sunday,
and Pharisees of the first clay school prosecuted him and obtained a
conviction for that act and a fine of $75 imposed for it, and he was
cast into prison. No one was molested by his work, but the old spirit
of Puritanism indulged itself in that infamous proceeding. No man
identified with the law allowing such a conviction, be' he a priest or
layman, juryman or judge, or legislator, is worthy the enjoyment of
the privileges of a free civil government. It was hoped that
Puritanism was dead in this country. But its spirit seems still to be
among us seeking its gratification in the meanest manner possible. . . ,
"If the church had the power, every unbeliever would be outlawed; no
one could hold an office unless he was a church member, nor be allowed
to teach a common school."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Testimony of Judge Thomas Barlow, Rome, N. Y.,
Daily Sentinel, Jan. 27, 1891. American State Papers on Freedom in
Religion. 3rd Revised Edition. Published in 1943 for The Religious
Liberty Association, Washington, D.C. by the Review and Herald. First
Edition Compiled by William Addison Blakely, of the Chicago Bar.
(1890) under the Title American State Papers Bearing on Sunday
Legislation. pp 584-585)
The "church" will do this? Really, all Christians? So, you are
admitting that you claim of "christian" supporters of the separation
is false. Or, if you are going from individual to organization, I
await your list of Christian organizations that have voted to
establish their denomination in the land.
Idiot. The poster is making no claim at all. He is providing
information from historical documents regarding the issue of
separation of church and state, as it has been debated throughout
American history. In 1891 the judge in question apparently said those
words in some official context (that is not clear from the cite).
The poster is not trying to debate the content of the post, and in
fact has said many times when posting such reference materials that he
will not debate them. He may not even agree with what the judge said.
lojbab
In another thread, you just told me that you don't prosylitize your
views nor condemn those that don't share your views....so, why are you
doing that here?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Sep C&S History lessons #9 |
06 May 2007 07:35:02 PM |
|
|
On 6 May 2007 08:36:06 -0700, Wide Eyed in Wonder
<writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
In another thread, you just told me that you don't prosylitize your
views nor condemn those that don't share your views....so, why are you
doing that here?
Explain how one can "proselytize" not holding a particular belief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Sep C&S History lessons #9 |
07 May 2007 04:54:54 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 6 May 2007 08:36:06 -0700, Wide Eyed in Wonder
<writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
In another thread, you just told me that you don't prosylitize your
views nor condemn those that don't share your views....so, why are you
doing that here?
Explain how one can "proselytize" not holding a particular belief.
He seems to confuse "proselytizing" with "stating ones opinion".
I should have given him a dictionary definition, so he can in theory
learn the meaning of a word (he won't, but what the hell)
<Main Entry: pros·e·ly·tize
<Pronunciation: 'prä-s(&-)l&-"tIz
<Function: verb
<Inflected Form(s): -tized; -tiz·ing
<intransitive verb
<1 : to induce someone to convert to one's faith
<2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
<transitive verb : to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause
Nobody is trying to convert or recruit Kenny into anything. He cannot
claim that he is not trying to convert others. Alas, he cannot tell
the difference.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Sep C&S History lessons #9 |
06 May 2007 02:18:30 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
In another thread, you just told me that you don't prosylitize your
views nor condemn those that don't share your views.
You as usual failed to understand what I said. Go try again.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
